The Wichita school board seemingly had no choice Monday but to approve a $1.37æmillion patchwork of private tutoring, without regard to whether that was the best way to help lagging students in Title I schools. It’s unfortunate that the No Child Left Behind law left the district no discretion.
As district critics would point out, if USD 259 had not been listed as “needing improvement,” it wouldn’t be in this position. But raising assessment scores is the highest of district priorities. Now, officials also must do everything possible to see that more than the projected 20 percent of eligible students participate in the private tutoring.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
14 Comments
This development will be interesting.
Will teachers grab all, or nearly all the paid-tutoring jobs? They have a right, to sell their knowledge in the private sector after their normal workday ends, unless their contracts prohibit this as a job-performance-interfering activity.
If they can do this, will they tutor one-on-one? That’s the best kind of tutoring, in terms of achieving maximal knowledge conveyance. You can tutor more students effectively if, but only if, they all have the same deficiencies, which is unlikely. If three kids have different deficiencies, spending time dealing with the first is wasted time for the two non-deficient students, then time spent helping the second isn’t useful for the first and so on.
Are some bright high school kids and community adults going to be invited into this, and be paid? If their services have been valuable for free, you have to pay them, otherwise you’re saying, “Well, we were kidding when we commended you before; you’re services aren’t worth anything if we have to provide monetary compensation.”
I think it would be super to offer high-performing students money to use their brains, when the traditional economy has only been willing to pay them for McJobs.
This development will be interesting.
Will teachers grab all, or nearly all the paid-tutoring jobs? They have a right, to sell their knowledge in the private sector after their normal workday ends, unless their contracts prohibit this as a job-performance-interfering activity.
If they can do this, will they tutor one-on-one? That’s the best kind of tutoring, in terms of achieving maximal knowledge conveyance. You can tutor more students effectively if, but only if, they all have the same deficiencies, which is unlikely. If three kids have different deficiencies, spending time dealing with the first is wasted time for the two non-deficient students, then time spent helping the second isn’t useful for the first and so on.
Are some bright high school kids and community adults going to be invited into this, and be paid? If their services have been valuable for free, you have to pay them, otherwise you’re saying, “Well, we were kidding when we commended you before; you’re services aren’t worth anything if we have to provide monetary compensation.”
I think it would be super to offer high-performing students money to use their brains, when the traditional economy has only been willing to pay them for McJobs.
There is nothing in the teacher’s contracts that precludes them from offering tutoring services after hours that I can see.
The trouble is that, so far, the district must only contract with state-approved private tutoring companies are currently getting a slice of the action. This was the entire focus of NCLB as created by it’s designers (the Bush mafioso), to channel public tax dollars into the private sector.
WHO are the seven companies that will be recepient of these tax dollars, what is their criteria and methodology of teaching, and what is the ACCOUNTABILITY system?
Apophis raises two good questions; just who are the seven companies, and what system is in place to hold these companies accountable? One would think that the crack reporter for the Eagle might have provided the names of the “state approved tutors” at a minimum.
As for accountability; how will the success of the efforts of these companies be measured? An increase in the number of students who scored below the proficient level on the last round of state assessments now scoring at least proficient? Or, those who did score below proficient and who still score below proficient but came closer? The mind boggles.
How to get more of the students entitled to the “free tutoring” involved in the program is another big issue. I would think that the tutoring would, by necessity, occur outside normal school hours. Does this create transportation issues for the students? Are the students involved in extra-curricular activities at that time which “interfere” with the ability to take advantage of the tutoring? If the latter is true, and these are athletic activities, are the parents or guardians looking for the “athletic scholarship”? If so, these folks need to review the rules of the NCAA concerning freshman eligibility for such, including but not limited to, the academic requirements.
I think I know a couple of the tutoring companies:BlackwaterHaliburtonDynCorp
“”"This development will be interesting.
Will teachers grab all, or nearly all the paid-tutoring jobs? They have a right, to sell their knowledge in the private sector after their normal workday ends, unless their contracts prohibit this as a job-performance-interfering activity.”"”
They already do that here. I had my oldest son in Sylvan and all of the teachers there were school teachers by day.
But Kev, the private company is who makes the profit.
If USD 259 used the hundreds of people on their payroll who are certified teachers but NEVER teach students to do what they’re trained and certified to do, how far would that go in helping students?
Some sharp investigative reporter needs to find out how many of these people there are, what do they add to the education of our students, why do they need to be certified teachers when they don’t teach students??? Could the answer to that last question have anything to do with hiding how money is spent? They aren’t teaching but that’s how the money “appears” to be spent. If Winston Brooks can keep that hidden maybe we won’t know how much money he is wasting! Maybe we won’t even discover he isn’t competent to handle his job. Use those hundreds of certified teachers with no classroom, no students to reduce the size of all classrooms. How much progress will our students achieve if each teacher has fewer students? We’re already paying them! Use them for our students!
I wonder if mandated tutoring would have done Bush any good, or was he done for from the start? Hmm……
Linda, setting aside for the moment certain other problems implicit with your thoughts under NCLB and other statutes, I see the following problem with putting these folks back into the classroom; lack of space in some buildings, at least.
That’s right; in some buildings, there is no physical space for there to be more teachers in the classrooms, as there are no empty classrooms. This may well not apply in all buildings, to be sure. But, if there is no physical room for the additional teachers, there will be no benefit from smaller class sizes due to placing these folks back into the classroom. What there will be, in buildings with these issues, is (hopefully) better, more experienced teachers teaching the same class of 25 to 30 than there is now.
Stated another way; unless there is more actual, physical space available in a building, there is a limit on the number of classes that can be held at any one time. If all rooms in such building are in use at all times during the day, then there cannot be additional teachers added to the faculty; where would they conduct class? If no additional teachers could be added, then there would be no reduction in size of classes, thereby no additional individual attention, etc.
I’m not adverse to investigating the financial issues surrounding the “teachers’ teacher” policy; far from it. As you know, I’ve many questions concerning the operation of the district under Mr. Brooks, and I’ve questions concerning his competence to lead a district such as this.
There are many connected issues here, to my mind. If there are buildings with classrooms which are not fully utilized during the day, then should attendance area lines be redrawn? Should there be “open enrollment” across the district to strive for a more equal distribution of students? Should additional classrooms be built in existing buildings? Should there be additional school buildings built, and if so, where; what size; what levels? The preceding are a few questions which run through what is left of my mind when I take a look at the situation.
Put two teachers in one classroom if that’s all the space available.
Mainly, I want attention to one of the many ways the current system is inefficient. Shouldn’t we expect accountability SOMEPLACE? Aren’t our children (OUR FUTURE) worth our attention, accountability, the most efficient system possible?
Linda, to me the answers to the questions posed in your 9:57AM post are “yes”. However, I’m not sure putting two teachers in one classroom achieves these goals.
Ridiculous hypothetical; two teachers in one classroom. Due to various reasons, one teacher is teaching literature; the other AP Calc. It would seem to me that the desired interaction of students/teachers in both classes would result in total chaos. (Hey, I said the hypothetical was ridiculous.) Put a floor to ceiling “barrier” between the two halves of the room? That would reduce space for students. Additionally, where to put the accessories necessary, e.g., white boards/black boards for each teacher, “smart boards”, another teacher’s desk, etc. The capacity of the room might then be reduced from being able to contain 30 students to say a total of 25. Is a class of 12/13 an efficient use of this space?
I’m with you, Linda, but just don’t think the “two teachers in a classroom” is a good idea (assuming you mean simultaneously). If you are advocating placing a classroom which might be empty one or two periods a day in service with a “teacher on a cart” so it may be used for classes during these times, that’s already happening in places with which I’m familiar, on a regular basis.
I know you are right; I’m just not willing to give up the fight which I see to be a necessary and just one.
Someone wise (NOT me!) said, “It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.” I’m certainly not saying YOU don’t have ideas. I recognize you are playing devil’s advocate with me. But shouldn’t we expect those in charge of our children’s education to have ideas??